Diese Umfrage hat zum Ziel, die Meinungen der EU-Bürger über gegenwärtige Heraus-forderungen, strategische Priortitäten

between 10 and 30%

“To engage intercultural dialogue and civic participation of citizens at Union level in the development of common European policies in the areas of asylum and migration...”

with the support of 

Migranti Solidali, CARDET Centre for advancement of research and development in education, INFOREF Initiatives pour une Formation Efficace, Seiklejate Vennaskond, EFUS European forum for urban security, Aufbruch Neukölln, Inter Alia, Siauliai Municipality Care Home, HUMANA People to people in Latvia, Roma Youth Centre, Centro em Rede de Investigaçãoem Antropologia, Centrul pentru Studiul Comparat al Migratiei, A.D.E.L. Association for Development, Education and Labour, Tudás Alapítvány,Assotiation of European projects in Bulgaria

‘Europe for Citizens’ programme for the period 2014-2020

Democratic engagement and civic participation, encouraging democratic and civic participation of citizens at Union level - Civil society projects

"The European Commission support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents which reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein."

Para activar el diálogo intercultural y la participación cívica de los ciudadanos en la Unión Europea

Pour engager interculturelle dialogue et la participation civique des citoyens au niveau de l’Union dans

Om betrokke te raak interkulturele dialoog en burgerlike deelname van burgers binne die Europese Unie

migration

Bo başdarîkirina dîyaloga navçandî û beşdariya bajarvanî yên welatiyan di Yekîtiya Ewropayê de

I am pleased to introduce the booklet Migrations, Integration and Co-Development in Europe, summarizing the conclusions of a common and participatory project that involved 16 civil society organizations from 15 European countries: Italy, Cyprus, Belgium, Estonia, France, Germany,

Greece, Lithuania, Latvia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Por-tugal, Romania, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria. The project, funded with the

support of the “Europe for Citizens” programme, has created an intercultural platform for dialogue and lively cross-border debate among European

citizens on policies related to migration and asylum in EU.

According to estimates by the UN Refugee Agency, UNHCR and the International Organization for Migration, IOM, persecution, wars, conflicts

and extreme poverty have forced an unprecedented one million people to flee to Europe in 2015. As stated by the European Commission, the EU’s external borders have increasingly been the scene of human tragedies to

which the EU, together with its Member States, must take immediate action through a shared and more coordinated approach in accordance with the

fundamental values at the heart of the European Union and international laws.

Although migration has become a focus point in the European agenda, policies on migration and asylum remain a controversial issue among many

Members States, both on national and local levels. However, the refugee crises should be considered not only as a shared issue among EU Member

States, but an humanitarian response to a global emergency. A common commitment among Member States and European citizens

should be strengthened and focused to address the root causes of displace-ment and migration, to ensure protection and integration of refugees and

migrants in the host society, as well as to create the conditions for co-devel-opment of a shared and peaceful future. As the UN Secretary-General, aBan

Ki-moon, said: “raising wire fences and constructing wallsis not the answer” to the refugee crisis.

Fausto AmicoPrism – PromozioneInternazionale Sicilia-Mondo

The booklet presents the conclusions of one year of intensive exchange of experiences among a broad audience of citizens from different local communities and countries in Europe, while debating issues for a coherent, shared and comprehensive approach to address the challenges related to migration. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views of all partner organizations and do not intend to be exhaustive in their treatments of the subject nor on the specific topics addressed in the current European Agenda on Migration.

Josef Stuefer on Flickr

m

integration

Citizenship Programme 2014-2020 Council Regulation (EU) No 390/2014 of 14

April 2014 established the ‘Europe for Citi-

zens’ programme for the period 2014-2020.

The aim of this programme is:

To contribute to citizens’ understanding of the EU, its history and diversity; To foster European citizenship and to im-prove conditions for civic and democratic participation at EU level; To raise awareness of remembrance, common history and values; To encourage democratic participation of citizens at EU level, by developing citizens’ un-derstanding of the EU policy making-process and, by promoting opportunities for societal and intercultural engagement and volunteer-

ing at EU level

Democratic engagement and civic partici-pation, encouraging democratic and civic participation of citizens at Union levelThis action is targeted at civil society, in line

with the objectives of the Programme and

in particular with the objective to : foster

action, debate and reflection related to Eu-

ropean citizenship and democracy, shared

values, common history and culture through

cooperation within civil society organisations

at European level.

Democratic engagement and civic participation Democratic engagement and civic partic-

ipation encourages democratic and civic

participation of citizens at Union level. This

strand supports activities covering civic par-

ticipation, focusing in particular on European

Union policies, and initiatives developing op-

portunities for mutual understanding, inter-

cultural learning, solidarity, societal engage-

ment and volunteering at EU level.

Civil society projects Civil society projects support projects gath-

ering citizens in activities directly linked to

EU policies, providing an opportunity for

direct participation in the policy making

process. Funded activities may include: pro-

motion of societal engagement and solidarity,

gathering of opinions, volunteering.

Dates01/12/2014 – 31/05/2016

The contextThe project “Migrations, Integration and

Co-Development in Europe” encourages

an intercultural dialogue between civil so-

ciety organizations and citizens from dif-

ferent countries and living communities

in Europe to express their views about EU

policies related to migration and asylum and

more broadly, about the key priorities and

strategic actions needed to face common

and current challenges. Through a bottom

up approach the project involves citizens and

members from civil society organisations,

local authorities, educational, cultural or

research institutions, town-twinning com-

mittees and networks that are active in the

migration and asylum field.

Countries involvedItaly, Cyprus, Belgium, Estonia, France, Ger-

many, Greece, Lithuania, Latvia, Former

Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Portugal,

Romania, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria.

General objectiveTo engage intercultural dialogue and civic

participation of citizens at Union level in the

development of common European policies

in the areas of asylum and migration.

Specific objectiveTo foster a lively and cross-border debate

about EU policies related to migration and

asylum among civil society organizations and

citizens in Europe.

Expected results are:

Enhanced awareness, democratic en-gagement and debate on EU policies related to migration and asylum among civil society organizations and citizens from different countries and local communities in Europe. Analysis of individual opinions of Eu-ropean citizens about the perception of the refugee crisis through the on-line survey. Developed recommendations on a com-mon European policy in the areas of asylum and migration through the involvement of ex-perts from civil society organizations, NGOs and local authorities from the participating countries. Increased cooperation and networking between civil society organizations and citi-zens that are active in the migrations, asylum and inclusion at EU level.

The online surveyAn online survey has been launched between

June 2015 and January 2016 in order to gather

individual opinions on perception about the

phenomenon and feedbacks about current

policies on migration and asylum policy from

citizens of all participating countries.

The international workshop on “Migration, integration and co-development in Europe”An initial international workshop on “Mi-

gration, integration and co-development in

Europe” was hosted in Caltanissetta, Italy, on

8-10 May 2015 involving over 50 participants

from Italy, Cyprus, Belgium, Estonia, France,

Greece, Lithuania, Latvia, Former Yugoslav

Republic of Macedonia, Portugal, Romania,

karmacamilleeon on Flickr

Co- migration

Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria. The workshop

included the active participation of experts

from local organizations involved in the mi-

gration field in Sicily.

The agenda included:

The European scenario on migration and asylum. Forum space: scenarios and experiences in each participating country. The European policies on Migration and Asylum: the European directives, the Treaty of Lisbon, the Dublin Regulation, the EASO “European Asylum Support Office” and the “CEAS- Common European Asylum System. AMIF - Asylum Migration Integration Fund 2014/2020. Vulnerable groups: victims of violence and torture, other targeted groups. Practices and experiences on the field: the role of intercultural mediation by “Migranti solidali”, social innovation for integration and new opportunities by “Caritas Agrigento & Fondazione Mondoaltro”, the protection of unaccompavnied foreign minors by Girasoli onlus. Co-development workshops: new perspec-

tives on shared policies.

The final international seminar “A common European migration policy”A final international seminar “A common Euro-

pean migration policy” was hosted in Caltanis-

setta, Italy, on 3-4 October 2015 involving over

50 participants from Italy, Cyprus, Belgium,

Estonia, France, Greece, Lithuania, Latvia, For-

mer Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Portugal,

Romania, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria.

The seminar included the active participation of

experts from local organizations involved in the

migration field in Sicily.

The agenda included:

The project “Migration, Integration and Co-development in Europe”. Refugee crisis: Migration to Europe ex-plained in graphics. From migration’s causes to integration: the European agenda.  Monitoring the implementation of the migration policy: data, corruption and recom-mendations. Migratory routes to Europe: testimonials by “Migranti solidali” from Afghanistan, Balu-chistan, Kashmir and Ghana. Forum space: presentation of recommen-dations by national delegations.  A European Citizens’ Initiative: a shared EU policy on migration and asylum.

Reflections and follow-up.

Recommendations in the areas of asylum and migrationBoth partner organizations and participants

have been invited to discuss and debate is-

sues from the European political agenda in

the areas of asylum and migration in order to

develop possible recommendations. The final

recommendations have been developed by

comparing diverse perspectives from differ-

ent local communities in Europe and drawing

conclusions through the interactions of a

plurality of point of views.

Dissemination and exploitation activities

have taken place at both local and EU level by

all partner organizations.

The partnership

Prism-Promozione Internazionale Sicilia-Mondo - Italy, Caltanissetta (Project coordinator)

Prism acts as a local development agent en-

couraging transnational cooperation on policies

promoted by the European Commission. The

association is intended as a laboratory where

both public and private organizations and

individuals with related interests can converge,

exchange ideas and collaborate to develop

projects that promote the economic, social and

cultural development of the territory.

website: associazioneprism.eu

Migranti Solidali - Italy, Caltanissetta

The Association is a migrant self help organiza-

tion that unrolls social activities concerning in-

tercultural mediation, orientation, information

and support of refugees and migrants, including

educational workshop, events and seminars

that promote intercultural dialogue and ex-

change at both local and international level.facebook page: Aps Migranti Solidali

Seiklejate Vennaskond - Estonia, Tartu

Seiklejate Vennaskond is non-governmental

non-profit organization active in youth field

from Tartu, Estonia. Organization target groups

include young people 13-30, youth workers

and youth leaders. Organization helps young

people to take initiative and put their good

ideas into practice.

website: seiklejad.org

Inter Alia - Greece, Athens

Inter Alia is a civic organization and a think-tank

based in Athens, Greece. Its mission is to raise

the capacity and awareness of European citi-

zens on the available channels for acting, partic-

ipating & shaping Europe. The four main tools

for action are: Analysis, Debate, Networking

and Research.

website: interaliaproject.com

Centre for advancement of research and de-velopment in education - Cyprus, Lefkosia

CARDET is an independent, non-profit,

non-governmental, research and develop-

ment organization based in Cyprus with part-

ners around the world. CARDET’s mission is

to inspire next generation education, and to

promote research, innovation, and develop-

ment through evidence-based practices, cut-

ting-edge research, and empowered people.

website: cardet.org

INFOREF Initiatives pour une Formation Efficace - Belgium, Liege

INFOREF is an association to promote the use

of information and communication technolo-

gies as well as innovative teaching methods.

INFOREF provides training for teachers and

adults and has participated for twenty years

in national and European projects related to

education and learning.website: inforef.be 

A.D.E.L. - Association for Development, Educa-

tion and Labour - Slovakia, Stropkov

A.D.E.L. is an organization, which creates op-

portunities for personal and professional devel-

opment of young people. A.D.E.L. aims to enrich

the educational, social and cultural life of young

people living in the country, with a focus on

young people with fewer opportunities and

coming from Eastern Slovakia.website: adelslovakia.org

HUMANA People to people in Latvia - Latvia,

Riga

Humana People to People in Latvia is a

non-governmental organization , founded in

2006. Its aim is to promote public awareness

of development issues , calling for everyone to

understand their role in the modern world and

to play an active and responsible behavior in its

creation.

website: hpplatvia.com 

Siauliai Municipality Care Home - Lithuania,

Siauliai

Šiauliu miesto savivaldybes globos namai is the

Šiauliai Municipal social services agency. The

main purpose of this organization is to provide

social services for disabled people, old and el-

derly people and migrants who live in Lithuania.

website: globosnamai.siauliai.lt

Aufbruch Neukölln - Germany, Berlin

Aufbruch Neukölln is committed to the conven-

tion that migration benefits migrants and soci-

ety. Our mission is to advance understanding of

migration issues, uphold the human dignity and

well- being of migrants, support migrants in the

process of integration.

website: aufbruch-neukoelln.de

EFUS - European forum for urban security -

France, Paris

Created in 1987, the European Forum for Urban

Security (EFUS) is the only European network of

local and regional authorities dedicated to urban

security. Bringing together nearly 250 cities and

regions from 16 countries, it aims to strengthen

crime reduction policies and to promote the role

of the local level in the design and implementation

of national and European policies. 

website: efus.eu

Tudás Alapítvány - Hungary, Hódmezovásárhely

The Tudás Alapítvány (Foundation for Knowledge)

was formed in 1994. Its objectives are: to support

young artists and their art exhibitions; to support

lecturers and researchers; to support book and

journal publishing; ; to release various publications;

to organise scientific and cultural conferences; to

present and support Hungarian culture abroad; to

support the studies of talented students. 

website: tudasalapitvany.hu

Centro em Rede de Investigaçãoem Antropo-logia - Portugal, Lisbon

CRIA is an inter-institutional centre devoted to

advanced training and research in anthropolo-

gy. CRIA promotes new research opportunities

providing scientific research leadership and

optimizing intellectual and material resources.

One of the fundamental areas of research at

national and international level is the develop-

ment of projects within the area of migration,

refugees, and mobility. 

website: cria.org.pt

Roma Youth Centre - Former Yugoslav Repub-

lic of Macedonia, Kumanovo

Roma Youth Centre is a non-governmental,

non-profit Roma youth voluntary organization.

RYC is active youth organization lead by Roma

youth working on the empowerment of young

people, in particular Roma, to help them be ac-

tive part of the civic society and the community

they live in, to represent the voice of the new

generation as potential of tomorrow.

facebook page: Roma Youth Centre

Centrul pentru Studiul Comparat al Migratiei - Romania, Cluj Napoca

Romanian Center for Comparative Migration

Studies was established in 2011. Starting with

2013 it is affiliated to the Faculty of Sociology

and Social Work at Babes-Bolyai University in

Cluj-Napoca, Romania. The Center deals with

topics such as international migration, forms

and dynamics of international migration, trans-

national migration, and transnational citizen-

ship.

website: migrationcenter.ro

Association of European projects in Bulgaria -

Bulgaria, Varna,

Association “European projects in Bulgaria” is a

no-profit organization who works in interaction

with social institutions, schools, public entities

and individuals in the field of social work, psy-

chology, computer science, health, law, art and

volunteering.

facebook page: Association of European Projects in Bulgaria

Facebook page: Migrations, Integration and Co-Development in Europe The online survey: http://goo.gl/forms/e6agQJN7yn Twitter: MigrationSurvey Email: info@associazioneprism.eu

developement

QMigration to EuropeMigration is a phenomenon that has contrib-

uted to shape the history of mankind. There

are over 60 million refugees or internally

displaced people across the globe – the most

severe refugee crisis since the Second World

War. Refugee and migrant flows in Europe

are at an unprecedented high. According to

UN in 2015, more than a million people have

made the treacherous journey to Europe

across the Mediterranean Sea. Coping with

migration has become a serious challenge for

the EU and its Member States.

Conflict and crisis in Syria, the collapse of the

central state in Libya and other conflicts such

us in Somalia and Eritrea, the increased insta-

bility in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan caused by

religious extremist and militant groups such

as ISIS, have displaced millions of persons as

a result of radicalization, violence, persecu-

tion and repression. Further trends in demo-

graphics, climate change, poverty and massive

exploitation of multinational corporations

affecting especially sub-Saharan African coun-

tries, all played a part in the record numbers of

migrants and refugees arriving in Europe.

Increasing numbers of refuges and migrants

take their chances aboard uncertain boats in

an attempt to reach Europe. The vast major-

ity of those attempting this dangerous jour-

ney are in need of international protection,

fleeing wars and instability in their country of

origin. Children are among the most at risk of

refugees and migrants. Huge flows of human

have being risking their lives to reach Europe,

which offers the possibility of security, safety,

and eventually building a future.

The ContextThe Directorate-General Migration and Home

Affairs (DG HOME) is responsible for develop-

ing EU policies on asylum. The 1951 Geneva

Convention relating to the status of refugees

(as amended by the 1967 New York Protocol)

has, for over 60 years, defined who is a refugee,

and laid down a common approach towards

refugees that has been one of the cornerstones

for the development of a common asylum

system within the EU. Since 1999, the EU has

worked towards creating a common European

asylum regime in accordance with the Geneva

Convention and other applicable international

instruments. A number of directives in this area

have been developed.

New rules were been agreed in 2011 and

2013 setting out common high standards

and stronger co-operation measures to en-

sure that asylum seekers are treated equally

in an open and fair system – wherever they

apply (second stage of the Common Europe-

an Asylum System).

These instruments are:

The revised Asylum Procedures Directive aims at fairer, quicker and better quality asylum decisions. Asylum seekers with special needs will receive the necessary support to ex-

integration

plain their claim and in particular there will be greater protection of unaccompanied minors and victims of torture.

The revised Reception Conditions Directive ensures that there are humane material recep-tion conditions (such as housing) for asylum seekers across the EU and that the fundamen-tal rights of the concerned persons are fully respected. It also ensures that detention is only applied as a measure of last resort. The revised Qualification Directive clarifies the grounds for granting international protec-tion and therefore will make asylum decisions more robust. It will also improve the access to rights and integration measures for beneficia-ries of international protection. The revised Dublin Regulation (Dublin II) enhances the protection of asylum seekers during the process of establishing the State responsible for examining the application, and clarifies the rules governing the relations between states. It creates a system to detect early problems in national asylum or reception systems, and address their root causes before they develop into fully fledged crises. The revised EURODAC Regulation im-proves the functioning of the EU database of the fingerprints of asylum seekers to make it easier for States to determine responsibility for examining an asylum application. It will allow law enforcement access to this database under strictly limited circumstances in order to prevent, detect or investigate the most serious

crimes, such as murder, and terrorism.

The Hague programme was adopted by heads

of state and government on 5 November

2004. It puts forward the idea of a common

European asylum system (CEAS), in partic-

ular, it raises the challenge to establish com-

mon procedures and uniform status for those

granted asylum or subsidiary protection. The

European Commission’s policy plan on asy-

lum (COM(2008) 360 final) was presented

in June 2008 which included three pillars to

underpin the development of the CEAS:

bringing more harmonisation to standards of protection by further aligning the EU Mem-ber States’ asylum legislation; effective and well-supported practical cooperation; increased solidarity and sense of responsi-bility among EU Member States, and between

the EU and non-member countries.

With this in mind, in 2009 the European

Commission made a proposal to establish a

European Asylum Support Office (EASO). The

EASO supports EU Member States in their

efforts to implement a more consistent and

fair asylum policy. It also provides technical

and operational support to EU Member States

facing particular pressures (in other words,

those EU Member States receiving large num-

bers of asylum applicants). The EASO became

fully operational in June 2011 and has worked

to increase its capacity, activity and influence,

working with the European Commission and

the United Nations High Commissioner for

Refugees (UNHCR).

In May 2010, the European Commission presented an action plan for unaccompanied minors (COM(2010) 213 final), who are re-garded as the most exposed and vulnerable

integration

victims of migration. This plan aims to set-up

a coordinated approach and commits all EU

Member States to grant high standards of

reception, protection and integration for

unaccompanied minors.

A comprehensive approach to migrationOn 13 May 2015, the European Commission

presented the “European Agenda on Mi-

gration” outlining the immediate measures

that will be taken in order to respond to the

crisis situation in the Mediterranean as well

as the steps to be taken in the coming years

to better manage migration in all its aspects.

The EU’s external borders have increasingly

been the scene of human tragedies to which

the EU, together with its Member States,

must take immediate action. At the same

time, migration needs to be better managed

in all its aspects; through this new Agenda,

the EU aims at providing its Member States

with tools to do so in the medium as well as

long term. Migration management is a shared

responsibility, not only among EU Member

States, but also vis-à-vis non-EU countries of

transit and origin of migrants. By combining

both internal and external policies, the Agen-

da provides a new, comprehensive approach

grounded in mutual trust and solidarity

among EU Member States and institutions.

The concrete and immediate actions that will

be taken include:

Tripling the capacities and assets for the Frontex joint operations in 2015 and 2016; Proposing the first ever activation of the emergency mechanism to help Member

states confronted with a sudden influx of migrants under Article 78(3) TFEU; Proposing  an EU-wide resettlement scheme to offer 20 000 places distributed in all Member States with a dedicated extra funding of €50 million for 2015 and 2016; A possible Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) operation to dismantle traffick-ers’ networks and fight smuggling of people, in accordance with international law.

The medium-term initiatives of the new Agen-

da on Migration are grouped in four pillars:

Reducing the incentives for irregular migration; Border management – saving lives and securing external borders; Strengthening the common asylum policy to ensure a full and coherent implementation of the Common European Asylum System; A new policy on legal migration, aiming to maintain a Europe in demographic decline as

an attractive destination for migrants.

RelocationRelocation is the transfer of persons having

an international protection status within

the meaning of Directive 2011/95/EU from

the Member State which granted them in-

ternational protection to another Member

State where they will be granted similar

protection and of persons having applied for

international protection from the Member

State which is responsible for examining their

application to another Member State where

their applications for international protection

will be examined. Relocation is a voluntary

system requiring for its implementation Q

co-developement

Member States’ pre-agreement to such

transfers. Asylum applications are unevenly

distributed among Member States. In 2014,

72% of the total asylum applications in the

EU were received in only 4 Member States:

Germany, Sweden, Italy, France. In Septem-

ber 2015, the Council adopted two Decisions

establishing a temporary emergency reloca-

tion mechanism to relocate 160,000 persons

in clear need of international protection

from Italy, Greece and Hungary over 2 years.

Relocation can only apply to applicants for

which the average recognition rate of inter-

national protection at the EU level is above

75%. Currently three nationalities have such

high recognition rates: Syrians, Eritreans and

Iraqis.

ResettlementResettlement is the process whereby, on a

request from the United Nations High Com-

missioner for Refugees (‘UNHCR’) based on

a person’s need for international protection,

non-EU nationals are transferred from a non

EU country and established in a Member

State. Currently, resettlement of refugees is

voluntary, with EU efforts being a sum of all

national actions. 14 Member States resettle,

with three other Member States resettling

on ad hoc basis, while the rest does not

participate in resettlement despite politi-

cal expressions of good will. Following the

Commission’s Recommendation, Member

States adopted in July 2015 a plan to reset-

tle 22,504 displaced persons from outside

the EU who are in clear need of international

protection, through multilateral and national

schemes. The priority areas for resettlement

are the Middle East, North Africa and the

Horn of Africa. According to information

communicated by Member States, 3,358

people had been resettled by the end of

2015. The Commission will soon bring for-

ward a horizontal resettlement initiative to

ensure a collective approach to resettlement

as a central tool in the EU’s assistance to

countries hosting large numbers of refugee

populations.

HotspotsAs part of the immediate action to assist front-

line Member States which are facing dispropor-

tionate migratory pressures at the EU’s external

borders, in the European Agenda on Migration

presented in May, the European Commission

proposed to develop a new Hotspot approach.

The European Asylum Support Office (EASO),

EU Border Agency (Frontex) EU Police Cooper-

ation Agency (Europol) and EU Judicial Cooper-

ation Agency (Eurojust) will work on the ground

with the authorities of the frontline Member

State to help to fulfil their obligations under EU

law and swiftly identify, register and fingerprint

incoming migrants. The work of the agencies will

be complementary to one another. The Hotspot

approach will also contribute to the implementa-

tion of the temporary relocation schemes pro-

posed by the European Commission on 27 May

and 9 September: people in clear need of inter-

national protection will be identified in frontline

Member States for relocation to other EU Mem-

ber States where their asylum application will

be processed. Italy and Greece are the first two

Members States where this Hotspot approach

m

Migrationtinent’s worst humanitarian crisis since World

War II. The arrivals observed throughout 2015

have been concentrated in both Greece – ac-

counting for more than 800,000 in 2015 alone

– and Italy. These two “frontline” states, have

been faced with the logistical challenge of or-

ganising the first reception and identification of

migrants. Coordination and full implementation

on the ground has been lacking. According to

Dublin regulation and EURODAC, frontline

states would have been responsible for fin-

gerprinting all arriving persons, receiving their

claims, and in most cases – given that Dublin as-

signs responsibility primarily to the state of first

entry – processing them as well as organizing

long-term reception or return. A large number

of those who arrived on Greek shores in partic-

ular have moved on to other Member States via

the “Balkan route”. Failed identification in the

first state of entry raised security concerns and

rendered the Dublin system practically inap-

plicable. Destination and transit states reacted

with a flurry of unilateral responses ranging

from the temporary reintroduction of checks

at internal borders, to the erection of barbed

wire fences, to the announcement of national

‘caps’ on the number of persons who would be

admitted to claim asylum. The European Com-

mission reported on 10 February 2016 on prog-

ress made on measures to tackle the refugee

and migration crisis in Italy, Greece and along

the Western Balkans Route.While it is clear

that much more needs to be done to achieve a

sustainable system of migration management,

there should be no illusions that the refugee cri-

sis will end before its root causes are addressed

in a more holistic and adequate manner.

tis currently being implemented. Other Mem-

ber States can also benefit from the Hotspot

approach upon request.Five hotspot areas have

been identified by the Greek authorities in the

Aegean islands of Lesvos, Chios, Samos, Leros

and Kos. Six hotspot areas have been identified

by the Italian authorities in Lampedusa, Pozzallo,

Porto Empedocle, Trapani, Augusta and Taranto.

EU Civil Protection MechanismThe Civil Protection Mechanism has been used

to provide humanitarian assistance to five coun-

tries dealing with emergency situations due to

the unprecedented flow of refugees across their

territory. Four requests are still active, from Ser-

bia, Slovenia, Croatia, and Greece. A total of 15

countries have made offers of assistance, provid-

ing items such tents, sleeping bags and bedding,

personal protective items, heating and lighting

equipment, and electricity generators.

A Return PolicyThe European Union is currently working on

an action plan for an effective return policy. The

Action Plan will ensure the following measures

are taken by the Commission, Member States,

EU Agencies, and third countries: full and cor-

rect application of EU rules; enhanced practical

cooperation among Member States; improved

cooperation with third countries; reinforced

administrative systems in Member States.

The state of artAs European leaders struggle to respond to

the growing number of refugees crossing their

countries’ borders, divisions persist among EU

member states over how to manage the con-

developement

Survey background and objectivesThe “Migrations, Integration and Co-Devel-

opment in Europe” EU-wide survey responds

to a request for data on the awareness

and opinions of European citizens on current

challenges and priorities for the development

of a common EU Policy in the areas of asylum

and migration.

The survey has the following objectives:

to understand perceptions, awareness and knowledge of European citizens about the phenomenon and the “new multicultural scenario”. to understand attitudes of European cit-izens towards different policy options in the

area of migration and asylum;

In co-operation with the project partners a

relatively short questionnaire was developed

and tested across all participating coun-

tries. The questionnaire was made available

through the website and social channels of

the consortium. All partner organizations

informed and involved respondents from

their European, national and local networks

to participate in the survey. Experts were in-

vited to answer the questionnaire also at the

occasion of the final international seminar in

Italy on October 2015.

In total, N. 844 questionnaires were complet-

ed between June 2015 and January 2016, by

citizens and migrants from all 28 EU Mem-

ber States. Participants in the survey were

57.4% females and 42.6%. The questionnaire

was translated in English, Italian, Greek and

Polish. The results in this report present the

perceptions and the opinions of the inter-

viewees.

The questionnaire was grouped around the

following main topics:

Awareness of the phenomenon Asylum seekers, refugees and economic migrants Common European policies on migration and asylum Integration and co-development Common and shared policies

A copy of the questionnaire can be found in

the annex.

Awareness of the phenomenon 89.5% of the respondents declare to be

enough informed about the phenomenon of

“migration”, only 4.1% declare to have a low

knowledge of the issue.

44.9% of the respondents believe that the

phenomenon of “migration” is strongly affect-

ing his/her country. 30.8% say that the phe-

nomenon of “migration” is moderately affect-

ing his/her country. 20.8% appear to exhibit

lower levels of concern about the issue.

56.1% of the respondents declare that the

percentage related to the presence of non

EU migrants in his/her country is less than

10% of the resident population. 21.8% de-

clare in between 10 and 30% of the resident

population. 18.2% declare over 30% of the

resident population.

36.2% of the respondents declare that the

percentage related to the presence of non

EU migrants in Europe is less than 10% of

the resident population. 24.7% declare in

between 10 and 30% of the resident popula-

tion. 33.8% declare to have a low knowledge

of the issue.

More than half of all respondents (62%) say

that the majority of migrants that come to

live in her/his country come from different

cultures and ethnic groups. 21.9% say that

the migrants that come to live in her/his

country are almost equally divided. 7% de-

clare to have a low knowledge of the issue.

Asylum seekers, refugees and economic migrants In general, 88.8% of the respondents declare

to know the reasons and causes related to

migration. 8% admit their lack of knowledge

about the issue.

49.7% of the respondents believe that the

majority of migrants is seeking international

protection, refuge and asylum. 37.9% believe

that most of them are economic migrants

who arrive for work or other reasons. Only

a little percentage admit their lack of knowl-

edge about the issue.

38.8% of the respondents think that her/

his country considers “only a little” the re-

spect of civil and social rights, particularly

for migrants, as a national priority. 27.1%

think “enough”, while 18.8% think that her/

his country does not considers the respect of

civil and social rights at all.

61.1% of the respondents know about policies

for services of reception and integration for

migrants that are promoted in her/his country.

20.4% is not sure, while 16.5% say that there

are not such policies in her/his country.

93.9% of the respondents declare to know the

difference between an “economic migrant”

and a “refugee or beneficiary of international

protection”. Only a little percentage declare to

be not sure.

62.9% of the respondents declare to know

the difference between an “asylum seeker” a

“refugee or beneficiary of international pro-

tection”. 36.5% declare to be not sure.

65.9% of the respondents do not know the

meaning of “IDP”, only 23.5% are aware that

“IDP” stand for “internal displaced person”.

56.3% of the respondents declare to know the

reasons for having granted the “international

protection”, 41.9% declare to be not sure.

Jason_Armstrong on Flickr

According to EUROSTAT, on 1 January 2014, the number of people residing in an EU Member State with citizenship of a non-member country on 1 January 2014 was 19.6 million, representing 3.9 % of the EU-28 population, while the number of people living in the EU-28 who had been born outside of the EU was 33.5 million. An analysis of the age structure of the population shows that, for the EU-28 as a whole, the foreign population was younger than the national population.

More than 487,000 people have arrived at Europe’s Mediterranean shores in the first nine months of 2015, double all of 2014. The journey is fraught with danger, nearly 3,000 people have perished crossing the Mediterranean this year alone, not counting those who lost their lives on the route. According to Eurostat, the highest number of first time asylum applicants in the third quarter of 2015 was registered in Germany and Hungary (both with slightly over 108 000 applicants, or 26% each of total applicants in the EU Member States), followed by Sweden (42 500, or 10%), Italy (28 400, or 7%) and Austria (27 600, or 7%). These 5 Member States together account for more than 75% of all first time applicants in the EU-28.

The Arab region has come to host more than one-third of the world’s refugees, with Lebanon and Jordan under significant strain. Lebanon, a small country with a native population of less than 5 million, has over 1 million Syrian refugees. Jordan, with a population of less than 7 million, is host to over 600,000 Syrian refugees, in addition to an estimated 800,000 Syrians that were living in the country before the crisis according to the government. Turkey now hosts the world’s largest community of Syrians displaced by the ongoing conflict in their country. According to United Nations estimates, Turkey’s Syrian refugee popu-lation was more than 1.7 million as of mid-March 2015, and the large unregis-tered refugee population may mean the true figure is even larger.

According to Eurostat, citizens of 149 countries sought asylum for the first time in the EU in the third quarter of 2015. Syrians, Afghanis and Iraqis were the top 3 citizenships of asylum seekers, lodging around 138 000, 56 700 and 44 400 applications respectively. Other refugees and migrants come from Eritrea, Kosovo, Nigeria, Somalia and several West African states including Senegal, Gambia, and Mali. Of those submitting asylum claims, Syrians and Eritreans are the most likely to be granted protection (more than 90 percent of both groups receive refugee status or another form of protection). Afghans, Iraqis, and Somalis are also likely to be granted refugee protection.

The terms asylum-seeker and refugee are

often confused: an asylum-seeker is some-

one who says he or she is a refugee, but

whose claim has not yet been definitively

evaluated. An asylum seeker is defined as a

person fleeing persecution or conflict, and

therefore seeking international protection

under the 1951 Refugee Convention on the

Status of Refugees; a refugee is an asylum

seeker whose claim has been approved.

However, the UN considers migrants flee-

ing war or persecution to be refugees,

even before they officially receive asylum.

An economic migrant, by contrast, is a per-

son whose primary motivation for leaving his

or her home country is economic gain. The

term “migrant” is seen as an umbrella term

for all three groups.

A person will be granted asylum if she/he re-

sides outside her/his home country or country

of permanent residence because she/he has

a justifiable reason to fear persecution there.

The reason for persecution must be related

to origin, religion, nationality, membership in a

certain social group, or political opinions.

Refugee status is granted to:

- a foreigner who has obtained asylum in EU

member states;

- a foreigner who has obtained a residence per-

mit based on exile and has been admitted into

EU member states under the refugee quota;

- an above-mentioned foreigner’s family

member who has obtained a residence permit

on the basis of family ties and who is consid-

ered a refugee.

According to UNHCR , the term “internal displace-

ment” describes situations in which individuals and

groups are forced or obliged to leave and remain

away from their homes, but remain within the bor-

ders of their own countries. The second element

distinguishes them from refugees, who are also

involuntarily displaced but across internationally

recognized state borders. Internal displacement

occurs typically in response to armed conflict,

persecution, situations of widespread violence, and

natural and human made disasters.

An application for international protection

refers to an application for asylum as defined

in Art. 2(h) of European Union Directive

2011/95/EU, i.e. including requests for refu-

gee status or for subsidiary protection status,

irrespective of whether the application was

lodged on arrival at the border, or from inside

the country, and irrespective of whether the

person entered the territory legally or illegally.

focus

If a person does not meet the requirements

for obtaining asylum, she/he may be granted

a residence permit on the basis of subsidiary

protection, or subsidiary protection status, as

a result of filing her/his application for asy-

lum. The permit may be granted if the person

is in danger of death penalty, execution, tor-

ture or other treatment or punishment that

is inhuman or violates human dignity in her/

his home country or country of permanent

residence. The permit may also be granted if

a person is unable to return to her/his home

country or country of permanent residence

without running into serious personal danger

because of an armed conflict prevailing there.

T he record movement of people into Europe is

a symptom of a record level of disruption around

the globe, with numbers of refugees and internally

displaced people. The civil war in Syria and Soma-

lia, the increasing violence in Iraq, Afghanistan,

Pakistan and the chaos in African nations like Libya

have created millions of refugees who are trying

to escape theatres of war and conflict. However,

at the same time thousands of economic migrants

are also tagging along in search of a better life. Ac-

cording to the Migration Policy Institute, the flows

themselves are extremely complex and driven by a

complicated mix of factors. Although the majority

of those arriving have protection needs (approxi-

mately three-quarters will qualify for refugee sta-

tus or other protection), many are departing for

Europe not from their countries of origin—where

they face violence and persecution—but from

places of first asylum, such as Turkey and Jordan,

that have become overwhelmed by protection

responsibilities. Globally, 86% of refugees are

hosted in the developing world, which is rife with

its own economic and political challenges.

The Reception Conditions Directive establishes

common standards of conditions of living of asy-

lum applicants. It ensures that applicants have

access to housing, food, health care and employ-

ment, as well as medical and psychological care.

However, many rights groups contend that a

number of migrants’ reception centres violate the

European Convention on Human Rights, which

prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment.

If a person does not meet the requirements

for asylum or subsidiary protection, she/he

may be granted a residence permit on the

basis of humanitarian protection. A resi-

dence permit may be granted if a person is

unable to return to her/his home country or

country of permanent residence due to an

environmental catastrophe that has taken

place there or because of a poor security sit-

uation there. Such a poor security situation

may be caused by an armed conflict or

a difficult human rights situation

focus

Current European policies on migration and asylum50.7% of the respondents believe that is

right to provide rescue to all the migrants

that are entering the EU countries without

a legal entitlement, but there is a need of

shared policies to manage the interventions

of assistance. 28.4% believe that is right be-

cause the majority are people fleeing from

serious conflicts and crisis situations. 19.1%

believe that this kind of help produces only

an increase of irregular migrants entering

the EU countries.

53.1% of the respondents believe thatit is

fair to offer protection and hospitality for

those that are fleeing from persecutions and

wars, because we must guarantee respect of

human rights to all people in need. 38.7%be-

lieve that is fair, but there is a need of

shared policies at European level to manage

flows and numbers. Only a little percentage

believe that the protection should be grant-

ed only in rare and very special conditions.

Only 14.1% of the respondents are aware of

the rules and procedures to grant the “inter-

national protection” at national and Europe-

an level. 23.5% are enough informed, 14.1%

declare to be sufficiently informed of the

issue. The rest of respondents admit their

lack of knowledge about the issue.

More than half of all respondents declare to

know the terms of the “Dublin Regulation”,

while 47% are not sure.

62.6% of the respondents declare to know the

Treaty of Lisbon, while 35.3% are not sure.

22.6% of the respondents declare to know

what the “EASO” is, 72% declare to be not sure.

36.3% of the respondents declare to know

what the “CEAS - Common European Asy-

lum System” is. More than 60% of all re-

spondents declare to be not sure.

Pending applications refer to all persons who have made, at any time, an application for international protection which is still under consideration by the responsible national authority at the end of the reference period. It thus refers to the “stock” of applications for which decisions are still pending. According to Eurostat, at the end of September 2015, more than 808 000 applications for asylum protec-tion in the EU Member States were still under consideration by the responsible national authority. Last year, at the end of September 2014, there were almost 435 000. With 366 000 pending applications at the end of Sep-tember 2015 (or 45% of the EU total), Ger-many had by far the largest share in the EU, ahead of Hungary (107 500, or 13%), Sweden (85 700, or 11%) and Italy (50 500, or 6%).

Global Panorama on Flickr

The Treaty of Lisbon (initially known as the Reform Treaty) is an international agreement which amends the two treaties which form the constitutional basis of the European Union (EU). The Treaty of Lisbon was signed by the EU member states on 13 December 2007, and entered into force on 1 December 2009. It amends the Maastricht Treaty (1993), also known as the Treaty on European Union, and the Treaty of Rome (1958), also known as the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEEC).The Treaty of Lisbon, renamed the Treaty of Rome to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).The Treaty of Lisbon meets the need to reform the structure of the EU and the way in which it func-tions, and it has redefined and strengthened actions taken at European level.

Since 1999, the EU has been working to create a Common European Asylum System (CEAS) and improve the legislative framework in this area. Following the completion of the first stage of CEAS in 2005, which was based on the lowest common denominator be-tween Member States, new rules have been agreed in 2013 (CEAS II). The aim was to en-sure that all applicants for international protection are treated equally in an open and fair system, wherever they apply. CEAS II is composed of the following five legal instruments:

The Asylum Procedures Directive sets out rules on the whole process of claiming asylum. The Reception Conditions Directive establishes common standards of reception conditions (housing, food, health care, employment, etc.) for asylum applicants. The Qualification Directive establishes common grounds to grant international protection. The Dublin Regulation establishes the Member State responsible for the examina-tion of the asylum application. The EURODAC Regulation establishes an EU asylum fingerprint database.

The Dublin Regulation establishes the Member State responsible for the examination of the asylum application. The core principle of the Dublin is that the responsibility for examining claim lies primarily with the Member State which played the greatest part in the applicant’s entry or residence in the EU. The criteria for establishing responsibility run, in hierarchical order, from family considerations, to recent possession of visa or residence permit in a Member State, to whether the applicant has entered the EU irregularly or regularly.The “Dublin” system operates on the assumption that, as the asylum laws and practices of the EU States are based on the same common standards, they allow asylum seekers to enjoy similar levels of protection in all EU Member States. In reality, however, asylum legislation and practice still vary widely from country to coun-try, causing asylum-seekers to receive different treatment across Europe.

EASO is an agency of the European Union that plays a key role in the concrete devel-opment of the Common European Asylum System. It was established with the aim of enhancing practical cooperation on asylum matters and helping Member States fulfil their European and international obligations to give protection to people in need. EASO acts as a centre of expertise on asylum. It also provides support to Member States whose asylum and reception systems are under particular pressure.

Lisa Ouelette on Flickr

Integration and co-development52% of the respondents think that migrants

who live in her/his country have a low level of

participation in the community life.33.3% think

that migrants should participate actively. Only a

little percentage think that migrants should not

participate at all.

36.7% of the respondents disagree on the

fact that if a migrant living in her/his country

commit a crime, she/he should be repatriated.

25.2% agree, 20.2% strongly agree.

45.6% of the respondents believe that the

immigration phenomenon will produce a long

term positive effect in Europe. 25% believe

that the immigration phenomenon will not

produce a long term positive effect in Europe.

26.5% declare to be not sure.

59.4% of the respondents think that immi-

grants who come to live in Europe help to

create new jobs. 21.2% declare to be not sure.

Less than 20% think that migrants who come to

live in Europe take away job opportunities to the

EU citizens.

The majority of migrants living in Europe are

working and paying taxes. They also use the

health and care services. On balance, 44.4% of the

respondents believe that they contribute more

than they receive. 25.3% believe that generally

they receive more than they contribute. 26.5%

declare to be not sure.

Across Europe, the treatment of refugees at an official level has raised alarm, because of wincingly painful historical associations. In Denmark, the government announced that arriving migrants would have their valuables taken from them.In the Czech Republic, refugees had processing numbers inked on to their arms. Across Europe, images of migrants show them in camps, on trains, amid barbed wire and guards and border patrols. Increase in the level and frequency of violence have been documentedin the so-called Calais Jungle in France and many other refugees’ camps on unoccupied lands. There has beenalarming rise in racist and xenophobic violence against asylum seekers and migrants, without a united, and humane, response to humanitarian emergencies.

The European Commissioner was drawing on a de-bate that has dominated discussions of the so-called migration crisis since last year - how to distinguish between refugees and economic migrants. Some have called the distinction necessary at a time of unprece-dented human movement. Others say it dehumanises one group in favour of the other. European countries appear to be designing policy around this loaded dis-tinction. Economic migrants or rejected asylum seek-ers face increasingly harsh measures, while the public’s mood towards them becomes ever more charged. The first thing that needs to be done in order to tackle the rise of xenophobia in Europe is to treat this phenomenon as what it actually is, a refugee crisis. There is no “mi-grant” crisis in the Mediterranean. There is a very large number of refugees fleeing unimaginable misery and danger and a smaller number of people trying to escape the sort of poverty that drives some to desperation

Takver on Flickr

The interconnections between migration and integration policies are manifold. Reception conditions of beneficiaries of international protection strongly impact on their future prospects of integration in the receiving societies. The EU Member States reaffirmed their commitment to implement the Common Basic Principles in the Justice and Home Affairs Council Conclusions of 5-6 June 2014. The definition of integration is reaffirmed as a long-term and multi-faceted process, including respect for diversity and the EU’s basic values, such as human rights, democracy and the rule of law. The importance for policies to adopt a holistic approach that mainstreams integration into all relevant policy sectors and levels of government is highlighted.

The Asylum Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) has replaced the European Fund for the Integration of third-country nationals (EIF) and runs from 2014 until 2020. The Regulation establishing the AMIF calls for the adoption of a more targeted approach to integration, in support of consistent strategies to be developed at the national, local and/or regional level. The Regulation also stresses the need to develop integration measures targeted to beneficiaries of international protec-tion, through a comprehensive approach taking into account the specificities of those target groups. Integration actions under the AMIF must be implemented in accordance with EU law and with the Common Basic Principles for immigrant integration policy in the European Union.

The Internal Security Fund has two strands. The ‘Borders’ strand supports nation-al efforts to achieve a uniform and high level of control of the external borders, supporting a common visa policy which aims at facilitating legitimate travel to the EU. The ‘Police’ strand supports national efforts to combat cross border organised crime and terrorism, reinforce law enforcement cooperation across borders, and risk-management efforts to protect people and critical infrastruc-ture against terrorist attacks and other security related incidents.

The European Commission has launched an “Emergency Trust Fund for stabil-ity and addressing root causes of irregular migration and displaced persons in Africa”, made up of €1.8 billion from the EU budget and European Development Fund, combined with contributions from EU Member States and other donors. The Trust Fund will benefit a wide range of countries across Africa that encom-pass the major African migration routes to Europe. These countries are among the most fragile and those most affected by migration. They will draw the great-est benefit from EU financial assistance

Sam Leighton on Flickr

Common and shared policies 47.5% of the respondents declare to have a

low knowledge about the policies implement-

ed by the EU to promote the integration of cit-

izens from non EU countries. 37.5% declare

to be not sure. 12.7% declare to be sufficiently

informed about the issue.

24.9% of the respondents agree on the fact

that “if the EU wants to counteract the social

tensions, it has to stop irregular migration”.

19.6% strongly agree, 30.3% disagree, 14.5%

strongly disagree.

62.8% of the respondents strongly agree on

the fact that the EU has to put more efforts in

the integration of migrants. 27.1% agree, only

a low percentage disagree.

79.4% of the respondents are in favour of a

common European policy on migration and

asylum, while 14.4% are not.

74.9% of the respondents think that the

Commission, in order to address the death

toll of migrants crossing the Mediterranean

and other routes, should make proposals for

a common framework to help asylum-seekers

and persons under international protection,

starting with those who have applied outside

the territory of the Member States. Around

15% are not sure. Less than 10% disagree.

66.1% of the respondents think that the Com-

mission, in order to guarantee equal rights and

common actions, should force all the member

states in applying the same procedures of pro-

tection.15.6% disagree, 15% are not sure.

Considering the Schengen agreement, 76.2%

of the respondents are in favor of shared pol-

icies related to migration flows that are based

on the capability of a country in terms of

hospitality, integration and job opportunities.

12.8% are not, the rest declare to be not sure.

65% of the respondents think the Commission

should invest more funds in the field of social

inclusion instead of security and repatriation.

16.5% disagree, 14.1% declare to be not sure.

 

In May 2015, the EU launched a European Agen-da on Migration involving all actors: EU countries and institutions, international organisations, civil society, local authorities and national partners outside the EU. The agenda lists 6 priority actions of response: joint operations to save lives at sea, reinforced anti-smuggling activities, a common approach on relocation and on resettlement, partnership with third countries and a new hotspot approach scaling up the operational support to EU Member States that are in the frontline of the current crisis, in particular Italy and Greece. Frontline states such as Greece and Italy bear a disproportionate responsibility for receiving new arrivals, although most migrants quickly move on to wealthier EU countries including Sweden and German, which in 2015 received almost half of all EU asylum applications. With the unprecedented volumes of new arriv-als, even the best-prepared European countries have reached a breaking point in their ability to meet European Union standards for receiving and processing applicants. The question of who is responsible for those arriving has reignited deep internal divisions between Member States. In the process, a new front line has emerged in transit countries such as Hungary and Croatia that sud-denly face enormous pressures at their borders, and in the case of Hungary the reaction has been to erect barbed-wire fencing and try at times to contain or push back the asylum seekers.  

Harald Kobler on Flickr

 

The number of fatalities has risen dramatically crossing the Mediterranean Sea. Nearly 10 times as many migrants per day tried to make the dangerous crossing in the first six weeks of 2016 compared to the same period the year before, and 409 of them have died, according to the International Organization for Migra-tion (IOM). With 3,771 deaths, 2015 was the deadliest year on record for migrants and refugees crossing the Mediterranean trying to reach Europe, the IOM has said. On October 2013, 366 people died off the Italian island of Lampedusa when the fishing boat they were travelling in from Libya capsized. Nearly all the victims were Eritrean. The largest loss of life during a migrant crossing to Europe was reported on April 2015, where at least 800 migrants died. Many other tragedies have been reported. The Mediterranean is officially a “grave” for desperate migrants.

Rescue at sea was the first priority for the European Union. In the course of 2015, Frontex Joint Operation Triton and Frontex Joint Operation Poseidon rescued over 250,000 people. These interventions and the deployment of Frontex Rapid Border Intervention teams in the Aegean helped detect over one million irregular immigrants and apprehend over 900 suspected smug-glers. EU action is also directly targeting migrant smuggling. The EU Agencies, Europol, Frontex and Eurojust, have scaled up their capacity to tackle migrant smuggling, with more coordination, extra resources, and a permanent presence in Member States under pressure.

There is an Increasing concern toward migration expressed by the respondents, due to unprecedented numbers of asylum seekers and migrants reaching Europe. This is probably also affected by the public presentation of migrants by the media, linking migration often almost exclusively to security issues.

Nick Kenrick on Flickr

There is a low awareness and misperceptions in matters related to migration in terms of data, asylum applications, situation in the destination country, including causes of the phenomenon.

There is a low knowledge about asylum procedures and measures for protection of refugees under international law in Europe.

There is a low knowledge about current European policies and regulations on migration and asylum, including European agencies that plays a key role in the concrete development of the Common European Asylum System

The opinions of respondents are contrasting on the impact of the phenomenon in Europe. Nearly half of the respondents believe that the migration phenomenon will produce a long term positive effect in Europe, while a consistent percentage declare a negative opinion or are not sure.

The public perception of half of the survey respondents is that migration could be a supply driven phenomenon, thinking that migrants who come to live in Europe help to create new jobs and contribute to economic development. Nearly of the other half of the respondents declare a negative perception or are not sure.

Half of the survey respondents declare to have low knowledge about the policies implemented by the EU to promote the integration of migrants. Only a low percentage declare to be sufficiently informed about the issue. Half of the survey respondents agree on the fact that to counteract social tensions, European policies should fight irregular migration. The other half of the respondents disagree.

The majority of the respondents believe that a Europe-wide common policy is needed to provide a coherent framework for facing emergencies and developing structural actions to better manage all aspects of migration. Shared responsibilities should be based on the capability of a country in terms of hospitality, integration and job opportunities.

The majority of the respondents think the Commission should invest more  funds in the field of social inclusion instead of security and repatriation.

Both partner organizations and participants have

been engaged in co-development workshops in

order to debate on relevant issues related to asylum

and migration and to develop possible recommen-

dations for a common European agenda. Stakehold-

ers consulted are from the partner organization

networks and local communities, reflecting the view

of a broad range of citizens spanning 15 European

countries with vast differences in the perception

of the phenomenon as well as in migration policy

traditions. It is important to note that the recom-

mendations are based on the constant contacts that

partner organizations have with civil society orga-

nizations, NGOs and local authorities, so we can

say that they reflect something more than just our

opinion. All national recommendations have been

presented and discussed during the final interna-

tional workshop in Caltanissetta, Italy, on October

2015. A final document has been developed by

putting together the diverse contributions from all

participating countries, thus drawing conclusions

that reflects a plurality of point of views.

The recommendations are grouped around the

following main topics:

Asylum and refugees Integration Economic Migrants Unaccompanied refugee children Dialogue & cooperation with non-EU countries Security

The European Agenda on Migration

The proposed recommendations do not nec-essarily reflect the official views of all partner organizations and do not intend to be exhaustive in their treatments of the subject nor on the spe-cific topics addressed in the current European Agenda on Migration and Asylum.

Asylum and refugeesAccording to Amnesty International, thousands

of refugees, asylum-seekers and migrants – in-

cluding children – making dangerous journeys

across migration routes are suffering violent

abuse and extortion at the hands of criminal

gangs and being shamefully let down by a failing

EU asylum and migration system which leaves

them trapped without protection. The European

Agenda on Asylum should strengthen the Euro-

pean and national capacity to ensure protection

and care for refugees and migrants during their

journey, rescue and transfer operations, including

cross-borders information sharing mechanisms,

legal advice and counselling.

Access to fair and efficient asylum pro-

cedures in line with international and EU

laws on humanitarian protection should

be ensured, including adequate reception

conditions and special attention to vulner-

able groups with particular needs such as

unaccompanied children, women, people

with disabilities.

As report by many human rights organiza-

tions, conditions of life in most of the recep-

tion centers hosting refugees and migrants

mintegration

should be urgently improved. All reception

centres should comply with minimum stan-

dards and ensure access to adequate accom-

modation, food, medical aid, psychological

care and basic services. Staff and operators

in contact with refugees and migrants should

be trained adequately and provided with

managerial support and supervision. Intercul-

tural mediators among former asylum seek-

ers should be highly involved.

The management of public funding for asylum

and integration especially in South EU Coun-

tries has registered a high rate of corruption.

Investigations in Italy and Greece uncovered

a system designed to ensure lucrative profits

from the coordination of reception centres,

exploiting the growing refugee crisis in the

Mediterranean. European Union and national

governments should develop and put into prac-

tices strong and effective policies and actions to

fight corruption, including higher levels of con-

trolling, monitoring, setting of qualitative stan-

dards on the allocation of financial resources.

Long waiting times and bureaucracy relat-

ed to pending applications for international

protection have caused serious problems

resulting in administrative backlogs, long

decision procedures, mix-up of information,

rises in legal costs and overloading of domes-

tic court systems. Above all things, the impact

of pending applications is devastating on the

lives of many refugees and migrants who get

stuck in bureaucracy, increasing their sense

of insecurity and vulnerability. In order to

decrease the illegalization of migrants, Euro-

pean Union and national governments should

adopt common procedures to reduce bu-

reaucracy and improve efficiency related to

international protection.

Safe and legal channels to enter into the

EU should be ensured to asylum seekers to

reduce demand for smuggling and dangerous

journeys, specifically through a more coordi-

nated refugees resettlement, family reunifi-

cation and issuing of humanitarian passports.

Despite the current European Agenda on Mi-

gration, a permanent and coherent system for

sharing the responsibility for the large number

of refugees and migrants among EU Member

States should be further developed. Member

States should fully apply the Common Europe-

an Asylum System (CEAS), ensuring harmoni-

zation of safe, fair and effective national asylum

procedures throughout Europe (including

protection and reception standards).

Networks for communication, trouble shooting

and the exchange of good practices should be

developed between public institutions, NGOs and

civil society organizations responsible for granting

asylum in different countries at EU level.

IntegrationWhether refugees stay in their country of arrival, are

relocated to another European country, or return to

their country of origin, refugees and migrants should

be helped to develop their competences and skills

for integrating into a new environment. Placement in

detention centres should be kept at a strict minimum

since it is neither in the migrants’ interests nor in the

interests of their host cities.

Integration of refugees and migrants is relat-

ed to an important extent to their image be-

fore the “public opinion”. Therefore, the role

of media is particularly important. Big parts

of the EU population hide behind simplifica-

tions that derive from the depiction of the

refugee crisis by the media (e.g. shifting the

blame to “traffickers” is a simplification that

implies the EU’s and the EU governments’

lack of willingness to take responsibility). In

line with the above, the EU should invest on

a widespread campaigns in TV stations and

social media for informing on the obligations

that EU countries have with regards to refu-

gees’ protection and the potential merits of

hosting and properly utiliz-

ing the potentials of refu-

gees.

Networks of local authorities

and cities should be devel-

oped in order to share expe-

riences and good practices.

Faced with the daily trag-

edies caused by migration

influxes on the coasts of southern Europe,

the consortium calls for the European Union

to support local authorities in managing this

issue, which is likely to increase in the next

few years. That is why the local authorities

are calling for the joint responsibility of the

member countries and for solidarity between

cities in welcoming and integrating refugees.

Every country that is a member of the EU

should accept to take responsibility in order

to help the countries with the highest influx-

es due to their geographical location.

Migration is potentially beneficial for receiv-

ing countries and societies: migrants can

make valuable contributions by relieving

labour shortages, increasing labour market

efficiency, and acting as catalysts for job

creation, innovation and growth - especially

in view of the long-term economic and de-

mographic challenges in the Union (ageing

population, economy increasingly dependent

on highly-skilled jobs). In line with the above

an European integration agenda should be

further developed and jointly implemented in

all Member States.

An European ‘toolbox’ of integration mea-

sures should be de-

veloped at EU level in

order to strengthen

existing policy tools

covering education,

housing, employment

and cultural activities

(i.e. the European Agen-

da for the Integration of

non-EU Nationals, the

EU-wide network of national contact points

on integration, the European Integration

Forum).

The role of the intercultural mediators

should be recognized and regulated within a

common EU framework, since intercultural

mediation plays a central role in the process

of integration of refugees and migrants in the

host society, and represents a precondition

for resolving linguistic and cultural difficulties

as well as for ensuring respect of fundamen-

    

tal rights. The professional involvement and

training as intercultural mediators of refu-

gees themselves should be highly promoted.

European Union and governments should

urgently develop a common strategic plan to

fight labour exploitation of migrants. Measures

should include higher levels of monitoring,

inspections and sanctions for companies that

employ workers without contracts, including

awareness-raising initiatives and campaigns to

fight undeclared work at EU level.

Procedures related to family reunification

should be less time-consuming, less expen-

sive and bureaucratic. Family reunification

processes should be based on humanitarian

considerations and extended to ascendants

on humanitarian grounds.

European and national policies should avoid

the proliferation of legal categorizations of

migrants and refugees because they multiply

vulnerabilities in the labour market. For ex-

ample, institutional racism is a form of racism

expressed in the practice of social and political

institutions, as distinct from racism by individ-

uals or informal social groups. It is reflected in

disparities regarding criminal justice, employ-

ment, housing, health care, political power and

education, among other things. In the frame of

a common European policy related to integra-

tion, European Union should put emphasis on

the fight against institutional racism based on

colonial categorization.

In order to avoid that refugees and migrants

end up to live in segregated areas and in very

low quality dwellings, European Union and

national governments should invest in new

forms of subsidized or social housing in both

urban and rural areas.

European and national integration policies

should put more efforts for systematic language

support programs, ensuring that different op-

tions are adapted to the diversity of refugees.

In most EU Member States, foreign qualifica-

tions, especially if earned in third countries,

are largely discounted in the labour market.

For this reason, a common framework for

recognition of academic and professional

foreign qualifications should be adopted at

EU level.

Intercultural and interreligious dialogue should

be promoted at European, national, regional

and local government levels. Particular empha-

sis should be placed on educating civil society

on solidarity and human rights in order to fight

United Nations Photo on Flickr

racism, discrimination and exclusion, especially

in North and Eastern countries where extrem-

ist groups and xenophobia against refugees and

migrants are increasing dramatically. In accor-

dance with the above, European countries and/

or local communities who do not comply with

international laws on human rights as well as

with the European values of integration should

be strongly admonished.

Increased diversity is an opportunity to

make schools more inclusive, creative and

open-minded. Common and specific measures

to improve education and human develop-

ment of refugee and migrant children both

inside and outside the school system should

be promoted at EU level, including common

strategies to tackle early school leaving.

“The Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX”

is a unique tool which measures policies to

integrate migrants in all EU Member States,

Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, South Korea,

New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey

and the USA.” Despite being a tool for political,

legal and statistical analysis concerning the

integration of immigrants in each country, we

consider it is too disconnected from the real

impact on migrant’s lives.

Unaccompanied refugee children In accordance with the Convention on the

Rights of the Child, all Member States should

ensure the best interest of children. The Euro-

pean Agenda on Migration should strengthen

the European and national capacity to ensure

protection and care for unaccompanied chil-

dren during their journey, rescue and transfer

operations, including health, nutrition and psy-

chosocial support, prevention and response to

violence and human trafficking.

A comprehensive child-friendly policy plan

should be developed at EU level, including

the development of safe return and reinte-

gration programs devised in cooperation with

countries of origin, the provision of training

to members of the border control patrol and

other authorities who come into contact with

unaccompanied refugee children.

All hosting centres for refugee children should

ensure full respect of human rights and guar-

antee high quality standard, with emphasis on

support to literacy, language, education and

professional training programmes.

All refugee children should receive adequate in-

formation about their rights, including potential

risks and how/where to report and seek protec-

tion. European and national campaigns should

be highly promoted in order to raise awareness

of the issues and human rights related to unac-

companied and separated children in Europe.

At least 10.000 unaccompanied refugee chil-

dren have disappeared after arriving in Europe

condemned by sex abuse and slavery, accord-

ing to the EU’s criminal intelligence agency.

European Union and all EU Member States

should invest resources to develop a common

approach to investigate on information about

the disappearance of refugee children as well to

improve prevention and effective responses.

QIn accordance with local child welfare laws and

EU’s international obligations, an independent

guardian should be appointed to ensure that un-

accompanied refugee children are protected.

However, the present system of guardianship

and care of unaccompanied children is failing

on many fronts in all Member States. Euro-

pean Union and governments should support

common policies and strategies that facilitate

the direct involvement of citizens as legal

guardians of unaccompanied minors to take

care of them more closely and ensure protec-

tion and integration in the host society.

Specific protection and integration policies

should focus on unaccompanied refugee chil-

dren when they turn 18 years old, leaving the

protection of the underage status and risking to

be easy victims for the black market  (prostitu-

tion, drugs market, terrorism, exploitation, etc).

Economic migrantsThe consortium stresses the need to clarify the

status of migrants and refugees, as each status

leads to a different type of intervention, as well as

their homogenisation across Europe in order to

maintain public confidence in migration policies.

Illegal migration policies, instead of facili-

tating criminalization of people fleeing from

extreme poverty and social insecurity, should

be addressed through a common EU strategy

to fight human trafficking networks, smug-

glers and the black labour market.

A welcoming work environment and an at-

tractive EU-wide scheme for foreign students,

researchers and highly qualified third-country

nationals should be developed (for example by

reviewing the effectiveness of the Blue Card

Directive: e.g. covering entrepreneurs who

are willing to invest in Europe, or improving

the possibilities for intra EU mobility).

Humanitarian emergencies European Union and national governments

should embrace the human rights and pro-

tection imperatives at the core of this crisis

and respond in accordance with the funda-

mental values at the heart of the European

Union and international laws.

Refugees and migrants should have access to

special protection, rest, counselling and care

during their routes. European Union and na-

tional governments should provide immedi-

ate responses while people are on the move

in order to ensure as much as possible a safe

passage to Europe without risking their lives.

European Union and national governments

should adopt a common strategy to prevent

humanitarian tragedies, such as issuing

humanitarian passports or providing hu-

manitarian boats to pick up refugees direct-

ly from departure countries such as Libya,

Egypt and Turkey.

European Union should invest more financial

resources to develop an integrated approach

against smugglers and traffickers, ensuring

that EU anti-smuggling and trafficking efforts

in the Mediterranean do not leave asylum

seekers in departure countries with no ac-

cess to protection.

migration

integration

co-developement

Dialogue and cooperation with non-EU countriesEU leaders should mediate at the higvhest

political level for stopping the war in Syria, as

well as the political instability in Libya, Iraq,

Afghanistan and African countries such us

Somalia and Eritrea.

EU and governments should promote peace

and political dialogue instead of military strat-

egies to achieve security and stability in Mid-

dle East and Africa. Military interventions for

fighting terrorism have dramatically increased

radicalization and caused social and political

instability across the World.

Exchange of good practices on integration

policies and strategies between EU Member

Stated and neighbouring Countries should be

promoted, in order to make Europe’s response

to the refugee crisis not just a crisis response,

but also a holistic investment for a common

social, cultural and economic development in

the Euro-Mediterranean area.

European Union and governments should

allocate more funding to build capacity in

non-EU countries to manage humanitarian

emergencies and flows of people in the frame

of international protection of human rights,

as well as to prevent and combat trafficking

of human beings in countries of origin, transit

and destination.

European Union should develop a strategic

plan to cooperate with partner countries to

put in place concrete measures to prevent

hazardous journeys. A political dialogue with

governments and public authorities in Libya

should be strengthened in order join efforts

against human trafficking and smuggling, in-

cluding monitoring of human rights violations

on the ground.

Non-EU countries should be supported in

strengthening their asylum systems as part of

the EU Global Approach to Migration. Trans-

national programmes should be designed to

enhance the capacity of non-EU countries to

improve protection of refugees. The role of

the European Asylum Support Office (EASO)

should be extended particularly in respect to

cooperation with non-EU countries and sup-

port them in dealing with asylum issues.

Pilot multi-purpose centres in partner coun-

tries should be established in cooperation

with IOM, UNHCR and local authorities to

provide assistance, provision of information,

local protection and resettlement opportuni-

ties to refugees during their journey.

European Union should invest more finan-

cial resources to enhance cooperation and

development aid policies in the Mediterra-

nean region, Middle East, Africa and Asia,

thus creating the necessary conditions to

enable potential migrants to stay in their

country of origin and not risk their lives flee-

ing to Europe.

A strategic cooperation for managing migra-

tion flows in cooperation with non-EU coun-

tries should be complementary to EU efforts

co-developement

There will definitely be a security breach

resulting from the influx of refugees. Instead

of investing heavily on technologies and know-

how for controlling the “quality” of refugees

and giving them a questionable security clear-

ance, the resources should be invested in

making the best use of the human resources.

The European Agenda on MigrationAccording to UN Human Rights, “increased

border control and surveillance have not

reduced the number of new arrivals – they

have only forced them to use more dan-

gerous routes, leading to increased human

rights abuses and loss of life”. Return poli-

cies for illegal economic migrants to their

home countries has become a top priority in

Europe’s management of the crisis, creating

serious concerns in terms of human rights

violations. In line with above European

Union and governments should invest more

funds in the field of integration instead of

security and repatriation.

Hotspots are meant to simplify and enhance

identification of migrants alongside pro-

tection of asylum seekers. However, in the

current political climate in Europe, hotspots

could become “pushback” or detention cen-

tres, preventing people from moving further

until it is decided whether they are in need

of international protection or should be re-

turned. Respect of human rights and inter-

national laws in the hotspots must be highly

monitored by International Organizations

and NGOs.migration

within its own borders, not a substitute for full

compliance with international and EU law.

European Union should intensify the cooper-

ation with Turkey in order to secure safe sea

routes for refugees to Greece and other EU

countries, connecting the management of ref-

ugees to the process of EU accession through

further financial assistance.

SecurityWhile migration influxes are often perceived

as a security threat, the consortium wishes

to emphasise that this is above all a human-

itarian issue. Policies and actions aimed at

refugees and migrants must respect the

constitutional values of the European Union

and international laws on human rights.

The European policy must not be limited

to border controls. A shared management

of the European border should be regulat-

ed within a shared and well-implemented

framework for legal entrance in the EU

(through an efficient common asylum and

visa system) in order to reduce push factors

towards irregular stay and entry.

As also said before, European Union and govern-

ments should cooperate with non-EU countries

to prevent and combat organised crime, traf-

ficking of human beings and terrorism. Proper

protection should be ensured to victims of

human trafficking, smugglers and black market,

supporting those ones who cooperate with the

authorities in dismantling the criminal networks.

The so-called Dublin System should be evalu-

ated and modernized, since the current system

has shown the need to better address situa-

tions of particular pressure on Member States’

reception capacities and asylum systems. New

criteria should be established for determining

the member state responsible for examining

applications for international protection.

The speed and effectiveness of resettlement

and relocation programmes within the Euro-

pean Union should be ensured and respected

by all Member States, taking into consider-

ation the capacity of each country in terms of

hospitality, integration and job opportunities,

as well as the wishes of the applicant.

The role of the EU’s Global Approach to

Migration should be strengthened through

clearer and more effective political instru-

ments (i.e. regional and bilateral policy dia-

logues and action plans with non-EU coun-

tries), legal instruments (i.e. visa facilitation

and readmission agreements), operational

support and capacity-building both in EU and

neighbouring countries.

All internal and external key actors - Member

States, EU institutions, International Organ-

isations, civil society, local authorities, public

and private stakeholders in both in EU and

neighbouring countries - should be involved to

further develop a more effective and shared

European policy on migration and asylum.

European Parliament on Flickr

integration

The project has created a platform for collab-

oration and intercultural debate on European

policies on migration and asylum. The project

has given us the opportunity to share experi-

ences, ideas and proposals, encouraging citi-

zens from 15 European countries to exercise

their right to express their own views and par-

ticipate actively in the development of common

European agenda on migration and asylum. As

a possible follow up, the proposed recommen-

dations could be translated in a future Euro-

pean Initiative involving a broader audience of

citizens and interested stakeholders.

-

tory, European citizens have a real possibility to

new tool – the European Citizens’ Initiative*. The

European citizens’ initiative enables EU citizens,

from at least seven EU countries, to invite the

European Commission to propose legislation on

matters where it has the power to do so. All the

European citizens, old enough to vote in Euro-

pean Parliament elections (18 years), have the

possibility to propose and organize initiative.

Firstly, they have to form a committee, composed

by at least seven European countries (Citizens’ ini-

tiatives cannot be run by Organizations). In order

to do so, the citizens’ committee must register its

initiative on the website before starting to collect

statements of support from citizens.

-

nizers have one year to collect the signatures

needed to support the initiative. To give their

by the organizers, on paper or online. If the

citizens’ initiative reaches one million signa-

tures, it can be submitted to the attention of

the Commission, who will examine the initiative

within three months. After that, the Commis-

sion representatives will meet the organizers

so they can explainin detail the issues raised

in their initiative; moreover, the organizerswill

have the opportunity to present their initiative

at a public hearing in the European Parliament.

The Commission will adopt a formal response

spelling out what action it will propose in re-

sponse to the citizens’ initiative and the reasons

for doing or not doing so. Thiscommunication

will be adopted by the College of Commission-

Anyway, the Commissionis not obliged to

propose legislation as a result of the initiative,

thusthe Commission proposal is submitted to

the legislator, as the EuropeanParliament and

the Council (or in some cases only the Council)

and, if adopted, it becomes law.

The European citizens’ initiative provides a

singular opportunity to bring citizens closer to

European democracy life and to foster greater

cross-border debate about EU policy issues.

This new tool for participatory democracy can

give young people the possibility to directly

intervene in the EU legislative agenda on mi-

gration and asylum.

migraion* Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the citizens’ initiative.

We wish to express our sincere thanks to the project coordinators that have put so much energy into the project: Toseef Niaz, Sotiris Themistokle, Christine Cloes,

Heleri Alles, Emilie Voigh, Monika Tils, Boyka Boneva, Madara Mazjane, Anife Sabedinovska, Ana Carrapato, Anatolie Cosciug, Lenka Curillová, Janos Palotas,

Khan Toseef Ahmed.

We would like to acknowledge the contributions of all youth workers taking part in the training course, who provided their valuable expertise and time at both interna-tional and local events where issues on European policies on migration and asylum

were discussed: Michail Theocharis, Stergiou Charalambos, Julien Keutgen, José Mapril, Federica De Giorgi, Veronika Lešková, Lucia Matlová, Alice Lõhmus, Andri-ana Cosciug, Any Alexandra Chiuaru, Barbieri Marzio, Dimitrios Rossakis, Monika

Tils, Angelika Swiderska, Simona Litviniene, Danute Akaveckiene, Kronberga Baiba, Madara Mazjane, Anife Sabedinovska, Alex Feldmann, Giorgos Monogioudis, Sen-

ad Sakipovski, Roza Palotasne Panti, Anna Palotas, Alexandrova Boyanka, Ruseva Zvezvedelina, Maria Cristina Santinho, Donatello Miraglia, Giuseppe Zuzzè, Jeanne d’Arc Sagna, Alessandro Melillo, Tiziana Trobia, Zeeshan Aslam, Strahil Rusev, Viliya-

na Gesheva, Martin Pardu, Evgenia Mazi, Nikos Papakostas, Gábor János Palotás, Viktorija Akaveckiene, Lucia Hurajová, Simona Pružinská, Fiorella Tona, Paolo Palum-

bo, Giuseppe la Rocca, Valerio Landri, Khan Toseef Ahmed, Cristina La Rocca.

On behalf of Prism we would like to thank all experts who provided valuable contribu-tions during the international events: Khan Toseef Ahmed, Giuseppe Divita, Nasrullah

Alakozay, Muhammad Shoaib Sarbazi, Adnan Hanif, Alberto Biondo, Adelkarim Hanna-chi, Giuseppe La Rocca, Giovanna Vaccaro, Calogero Santoro, Claudia Lanteri.

Gratitude is extended to all partner members and European citizens that have been consulted in the online survey and for the information they have provided

during the local workshops.

We would also like to thank the Municipality of Caltanissetta for recognizing the po-tential of the project and providing the venues for hosting the international events.

Finally, we acknowledge the help and financial support of the “The Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency – EACEA” and of the “Europe for Citizens” programmes.

Prism – PromozioneInternazionale Sicilia-Mondo